http://fromtherooftops.us/prime-authentic-messaging/ Branding, Strategy, Consumer Insights and Trends Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:42:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://fromtherooftops.us/prime-authentic-messaging/comment-page-1/#comment-313 PRIME Messaging: Intentionality Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:20:13 +0000 http://fromtherooftops.us/?p=445#comment-313 [...] series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” [...] [...] series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” [...]

]]> http://fromtherooftops.us/prime-authentic-messaging/comment-page-1/#comment-145 PRIME Messaging: Rigor Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:35:39 +0000 http://fromtherooftops.us/?p=445#comment-145 [...] series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” [...] [...] series of developing thoughts on the intersection of authentic messaging and sustainability. In part one I introduce the concept of greenwash-fighting marketing that follows 5 “PRIME” [...]

]]> http://fromtherooftops.us/prime-authentic-messaging/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Jordan Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:01:10 +0000 http://fromtherooftops.us/?p=445#comment-67 The good news is if you can communicate this around as a standard that people can use, then feasibly you can diminish some of the effects of greenwashing by changing the rhetoric surrounding the issue. The bad news is this will only work until such time as your acronym gets appropriated by the same people who fomented green ignorance such that greenwashing became both possible and common. If value can be found at the margins of institutional thought, then it can be adapted or adopted. Adoption is more monetarily, culturally and psychically expensive; so, adapting it to fit the pre-existing will of the institution happens more often. The question I would ask is: How can this appropriation be staved off as long as possible in order to maximize the effect your way of thinking can have. I see a scale issue that could be exploited, in that measurability still needs benchmarks, and the companies you've mentioned can be used to develop these tools in such a way as to generate guidelines from which implementation and change management techniques can be derived to encourage adoption rather than adaptation. It will be significantly harder to obfuscate or exploit your acronym for inauthentic purposes once you've set down clear, scalable benchmarks for relatively simple third-party evaluations. You can make it easy to publically embarrass those who should fail the tests, but have taken great pains to pretend they don't. Hangers-on can be annoying, posers can dilute the value of what you're doing, but liars...scratch a liar, find a thief. Liars steal whatever value you tried to create. A disincentive might be a good idea to discourage adaptation rather than adoption. Either way, Caleb, should you want an extra set of hands going forward on this, I'm here for you. The good news is if you can communicate this around as a standard that people can use, then feasibly you can diminish some of the effects of greenwashing by changing the rhetoric surrounding the issue. The bad news is this will only work until such time as your acronym gets appropriated by the same people who fomented green ignorance such that greenwashing became both possible and common. If value can be found at the margins of institutional thought, then it can be adapted or adopted. Adoption is more monetarily, culturally and psychically expensive; so, adapting it to fit the pre-existing will of the institution happens more often. The question I would ask is: How can this appropriation be staved off as long as possible in order to maximize the effect your way of thinking can have.
I see a scale issue that could be exploited, in that measurability still needs benchmarks, and the companies you’ve mentioned can be used to develop these tools in such a way as to generate guidelines from which implementation and change management techniques can be derived to encourage adoption rather than adaptation. It will be significantly harder to obfuscate or exploit your acronym for inauthentic purposes once you’ve set down clear, scalable benchmarks for relatively simple third-party evaluations. You can make it easy to publically embarrass those who should fail the tests, but have taken great pains to pretend they don’t.
Hangers-on can be annoying, posers can dilute the value of what you’re doing, but liars…scratch a liar, find a thief. Liars steal whatever value you tried to create. A disincentive might be a good idea to discourage adaptation rather than adoption.
Either way, Caleb, should you want an extra set of hands going forward on this, I’m here for you.

]]>